Meta-Physical versus Anti-Metaphysical

Gnomon

Meta-Physical versus Anti-Metaphysical Agendas

I've recently experienced counter-productive dialogues with posters who seem to have an anti-metaphysics agenda. When a thread discussion begins to touch on non-physical topics, such as Mental Models and Subjective Qualia, they will insist on hard empirical evidence before they will even talk about such non-things. The implicit assumption seems to be that Physics is the final authority on the Real World*1. And anything non-physical is un-real, hence un-important. This animus against mental noumena is probably not a case of philosophical Solipsism, but may be a symptom of the dogmatic belief system known as Scientism*2, or its philosophical counterpart Positivism*3. It regards objective Science*4 as the sole source of Truth about Reality, and all else as subjective opinions, or worse, as religious doctrine to be accepted on Faith.

Defenders of the Scientism "faith" are quick to question the intelligence, education, & motives of those who dare to openly discuss such taboo topics as Metaphysics & Mental States, without giving due obeisance to the canon scriptures of "Science", envisioned as a centralized authoritative institution. For them. Metaphysics*5 is defined as "Idealism" or "irrational religious doctrine", and "non-physical" is labelled as "literal non-sense". That true/false hostility to intangibles is probably due to the intrinsic monistic Materialism of modern science. On a Science forum such an exclusive attitude might be appropriate. But, on a Philosophy forum what else can we talk about, except the non-physical, intangible, non-specific, universal, abstract, concepts that Aristotle addressed in the treatise now known as The Metaphysics? His Physics is clearly out-dated, but his MetaPhysics is still discussed and debated 25 centuries later.

It may be reasonable to view Mother Nature as the final authority on Reality. And the current paradigm of physical Science is our best model of Nature, to date. But, few scientists would be so arrogant as to deny that there are aspects of the real world that are not amenable to empirical evidence. Historically, Enlightenment Science challenged the authority of Mother Church on physical facts, but has since made little progress on non-physical questions, such as those addressed by the so-called "soft" sciences of Psychology, Sociology, & Political Science. Those non-empirical fields study, not material physical Nature, but mental human Culture, and are essentially forms of Philosophy with statistical models, and inherent margins of error.

Critical analysis of truth claims is the primary tool of Philosophy. But due to the subjectivity of its subject-matter, such critiques are necessarily subject to negotiation between opposing views. So, a respectful zero-sum, win-win strategy is obligatory, in order to avoid unproductive Us-vs-Them flame wars. Differences of opinion can be constructive, if both sides are treated as equals, and not unfairly denigrated as mentally deficient, or scientifically unorthodox. But, if the absolute Truth is reserved for one side, a dialogue can turn into cyber-bullying. Especially, if one party is less-than-certain about his position.

A typical attitude of antagonistic posters is this : "Since ‘metaphysical’ realities have no discernible impact on anything whatsoever, it’s completely unimportant whether they ‘exist’ or not. " (Quora) So a pertinent question for this forum is why do we waste so much verbiage on "inconsequential" topics? Along with "God", "Metaphysics" has been triumphantly pronounced dead, for centuries. But unlike un-dead zombies, questions about non-physical aspects of the world continue to seek-out tasty brains & tender minds. Utilitarian Science has no practical use for abstract concepts, except for such embarrassing notions as Virtual Particles and nonphysical non-dimensional quantities, like ratios and constants.

My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . . . No? :cool:

NUMBERED NOTES :
*1. Probably few posters on this forum would seriously doubt that the Scientific Method is the best source of useful information on the mechanical processes of the physical world. No Flat-Earthers here. However, those methods have not proven to be very effective in discovering how & why the human brain creates imaginary models (beliefs) of its physical & cultural environment. Such mental models are obviously useful for the evolutionary mandate of survival in a dog-eat-dog world. But only homo sapiens has developed the ability to communicate their subjective models to fellow humans, via conventional conceptual language. However, the limitations of verbal communication of subjective feelings eventually made non-empirical philosophical methods of analysis necessary. Philosophy is concerned, not with physical Mechanics, but with Metaphysical Logic.

*2. Scientism : As a form of dogma: "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

*3. Positivism : a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism. ___Oxford Dictionary

*4. Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society. . . . The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

*5. Personally, I define "Metaphysics" as the kind of topics discussed by Aristotle in the second volume of his treatise on Nature. It was not concerned with tangible physical objects, but with inangible abstract subjects, such as generalities and universals. He didn't give it a special name, but that volume later came to be labelled by Catholic Scholastics as " the meta-physics", meaning simply "after the physics volume". Unfortunately, that name came to be understood as referring to super-natural or religious subjects.

*6. Non-Physical Phenomena :
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."
― Nikola Tesla

FORUM TROLLS LURK UNDER THREAD TOPICS, NOT UNDER BRIDGES
1854.jpg?width=1200&height=1200&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&s=5eb9a7cecc873061aa41c3f0f62245d8

1854.jpg?width=1200&height=1200&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&s=5eb9a7cecc873061aa41c3f0f62245d8

180 Proof

:lol:

L'éléphant

My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? — Gnomon

I'm thinking cause they're choleric -- easily irritated. So, your posts are doing their job just fine.

Deletedmemberzc

— Gnomon

The emotional satisfaction of certainty at times leads us all astray.

"He was starving in some great mystery, like a man who is sure what is true."

Leonard Cohen

180 Proof

Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . . . No? — Gnomon

"Metaphysical speculation" that proposes suppositions and/or interpretions which are inconsistent with, or contrary to, facts of the matter tend to mystify (i.e. beg questions) much more so than they explicate (i.e. raise unbegged, probative questions). 'Speculation itself' isn't objectionable; however, conceptual nonsense (i.e. just making any "what if"-shit up) pawned-off as "speculation' is vacuous sophistry, and one function of philosophizing is to exorcise sophistries – including, especially, one's own. Read Plato's early "Socratic" dialogues, Gnomon. Read Lucretius & Sextus Empiricus. Read Hume. Read Peirce & Dewey. Read Rosset & Meillassoux. :fire:

EugeneW

however, conceptual nonsense (i.e. just making any "what if"-shit up) pawned-off as "speculation' is vacuous sophistry, — 180 Proof

Sophistry:
"Subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation."

Isn't physics subtly deceptive? It assigns objective existence to weird things like Calabi-Yau manifolds, superstring landscapes, mass-energy equivalence, flux tubes, degenerate vacua and vacuum expectation values, virtual particles, good and bad ghost particles, Goldstone bosons being eaten by massless vector particles, AdS/CFT correspondence and related emergence of gravity, Norton domes, local gauge invariance, adiabatìc cooling, flavored and colored particles, non-local entanglement, collapse of the wavefunction, loop gravity, soft hair horizons, not to speak of mathematical stuff made up and accompanying them. They would be considered off-line, deviating, mentally derailed, or having a psychotic episode in a society that doesn't value what they value. They would be given a warm and dry place, shelter, and something to eat, practicing daily therapy to get back to their senses before returning to society.

180 Proof

:clap: :smirk:

Many seem to know some (textbook) physics but, as this thread amply shows, very few demonstrate that they actually understand the speculative implications of major physicists' rival interpretations of the currently prevailing theories. — 180 Proof

Wayfarer

Isn't physics subtly deceptive? It assigns objective existence to weird things like Calabi-Yau manifolds, superstring landscapes, mass-energy equivalence, flux tubes, degenerate vacua and vacuum expectation values, virtual particles, good and bad ghost particles, Goldstone bosons being eaten by massless vector particles, AdS/CFT correspondence and related emergence of gravity, Norton domes, local gauge invariance, adiabatìc cooling, flavored and colored particles, non-local entanglement, collapse of the wavefunction, loop gravity, soft hair horizons, not to speak of mathematical stuff made up and accompanying them. — EugeneW

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. — Richard Lewontin

The jealous God dies hard.

Metaphysician Undercover

And anything non-physical is un-real, hence un-important. — Gnomon

I think the contradictory nature of this statement is at the heart of the problem. The importance, or "un-importance" of a subject is determined relative to its good, or purpose. The good of a thing, as what is desired, wanted, or needed, is a state not yet existent. Things not yet existent are non-physical, as mere possibility.

Therefore, to say that the non-physical is un-important is blatantly contradictory, because importance and unimportance are definitively non-physical. So if real and un-real are determined by importance, as your statement would suggest, it is necessary to class the non-physical as real, because importance and unimportance are non-physical.

My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . — Gnomon

Hypocritical activity is often the direct result of contradictory beliefs, like the one expressed above. Despite the fact that the "Anti-Metaphysics Trolls" insist that metaphysics is unimportant and dead, they are still driven by the same non-physical sense of importance, to practice metaphysics. In other words they see some purpose to what you see as wasting time. Asserting and insisting that X is the case, does not make it so, especially if my actions serve as a demonstration that X is not the case.

Wayfarer

My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time… — Gnomon

So - you’re trolling the trolls?

EugeneW

↪Wayfarer

If Carl Sagan used "God" instead of "science" in his talks, he would be a master missionary. Which he is.

lll

Defenders of the Scientism "faith" are quick to question the intelligence, education, & motives of those who dare to openly discuss such taboo topics as Metaphysics & Mental States, without giving due obeisance to the canon scriptures of "Science", envisioned as a centralized authoritative institution. — Gnomon

Perhaps you project, sir. There are approximately 450 to 500 million nonbelievers worldwide, including both positive and negative atheists, or roughly 7 per cent of the global population. The 'black tide' is very much still in, as always.

lll

Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . . . No? — Gnomon

Genuine speculation is less annoying and perhaps less common than hawking the next flavor of informagical kool-aid.

T Clark

The jealous God dies hard. — Wayfarer

I'm generally sympathetic to non-scientific ways of seeing the world and criticize scientific rigidity, but I don't find the Lewontin quote very convincing.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs — Richard Lewontin

For me, the main power of science is the absurdity of some of its constructs. That's the point, if it was all common sense, we wouldn't need science at all. Well... maybe.

its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life — Richard Lewontin

That is a great straw man argument. I'm going to keep it around in case I ever need a good example.

Hey!! How do you get quotes that have a direct link to a source outside the forum? I've never noticed that before.

god must be atheist

My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? — Gnomon

1. My time is not valuable. My on-line time is worth even less. Wrong assumption.
2. We, Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, don't want to defeat something that's dead. We want to stop the proliferation of other people believing that something dead is something alive.
3. Thoughts can make a difference in the world. Stupid thoughts increase the stupidity level all over the land. I don't like to see that.

You asked a question and I answered your question. That's all. Run with it.

Gnomon

So - you’re trolling the trolls? — Wayfarer

Ha! My questions above are not intended to mock the trolls, but to open a two-way dialog on, what I take to be the purpose of Philosophy : to study Human Culture in all its manifestations. The "soft" sciences scrutinize narrow segments of Humanity, but Philosophy can take a more holistic, and interdisciplinary, perspective. That encyclopedic worldview includes the physical phenomena of the world, but leaves the narrowly-focused investigations to specialists.

As I see it, Philosophy is for Generalists. By contrast, the Trolls don't trust speculative generalizations or intuitive exploration. I understand their wariness, but I don't think censorship of artistic imagination is called for. I don't have to adopt the specific beliefs of Spiritualism, for instance, in order to appreciate its significance to humanity's exploration of the world. I'm merely trying to remove the stain of sectarian Theology from the study of eclectic Metaphysics. :smile:

"Today, science-minded people understand that the dead do not speak to us, . . . . Nonetheless, we can still appreciate the beauty produced by artists who hold these beliefs."
___psychologist Stuart Vyse, Skeptical Inquirer vol46, issue2

PS___The science-defending Trolls erroneously assume that, if I take some metaphysical speculations seriously, I must have gone over to the "dark side" of Anti-Science. In the 1950s, commie-hunter Joe McCarthy savagely attacked, atomic scientist Robert Oppenheimer, because, in his youth, he had been attracted to the Utopian dream of Communism. However, Oppie later realized that the dream had become a nightmare in practice. So he publicly apologized, saying, "most of what I believed then now seems complete nonsense". But his persecutor believed that "once a commie, always a commie", or at best a "fellow traveler". Likewise, the anti-metaphyics Trolls, seem to believe that any dabbling in non-science is a sin, to be punished & expurgated, lest it contaminate the purity of Physics. So, I'm merely resisting the dogma-defending Inquisition. :cool:

magritte

Genuine speculation — lll

And what would that be?

Gnomon

Perhaps you project, sir. There are approximately 450 to 500 million nonbelievers worldwide, including both positive and negative atheists, or roughly 7 per cent of the global population. The 'black tide' is very much still in, as always.. . . .
Genuine speculation is less annoying and perhaps less common than hawking the next flavor of informagical kool-aid. — lll

Hi 3, I don't know you, and you don't know anything about me. Yet, since I use taboo terms, like "metaphysics" & "holism", apparently you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm some kind of religious wacko-nut. So FYI, I profess no religion, practice no rituals, and don't believe in magic. So, you can count me among the rising ranks of "non-believers". But I remain an open-minded Agnostic, not a "negative" Atheist. You could say that, philosophically, I'm a William James "melioristic skeptic". Pleased to meet you! :smile:

↪180 Proof

180 Proof

1. My time is not valuable. My on-line time is worth even less. Wrong assumption.
2. We, Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, don't want to defeat something that's dead. We want to stop the proliferation of other people believing that something dead is something alive.
3. Thoughts can make a difference in the world. Stupid thoughts increase the stupidity level all over the land. I don't like to see that — god must be atheist

:clap: :100:

not a "negative" Atheist — Gnomon

Me too. :up:

NB: I worship via lifelong study the almighty Pandeus. :wink:

Tobias

My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . . . No? — Gnomon

Well, I can only speculate about a psychological answer to your question, not per se a metaphysical one. My prof. on psychology of law taught me that when you talk to someone and you ask 'why' three times shortly after each other, you will incur their irritation. The reason for that is that you have reached the level of presuppositions and assumptions which most just accept as 'clear' and for which they cannot give any further account. In my view metaphysics does just that, it interrogates what you consider the basic structures of reality. They become hard to articulate and therefore cause irritation when you force someone to.

180 Proof

... when you talk to someone and you ask 'why' three times shortly after each other, you will incur their irritation. The reason for that is that you have reached the level of presuppositions and assumptions which most just accept as 'clear' and for which they cannot give any further account. In my view metaphysics ... interrogates what you consider the basic structures of reality. They become hard to articulate and therefore cause irritation when you force someone to. — Tobias

:fire: Thus, all the question-begging woo-of-the-gaps sophistry called to account (not "trolled").

T Clark

I've recently experienced counter-productive dialogues with posters who seem to have an anti-metaphysics agenda. — Gnomon

Metaphysics discussions are always contentious. The word "metaphysics" means many things to many people. As you've noted, there are many who mistake it for religion or the occult and dismiss it out of hand. On the other hand, metaphysics is at the heart of how I understand our, people's, relationship with the world.

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend.

Wayfarer

How do you get quotes that have a direct link to a source outside the forum? — T Clark

Took me years to work that out! Here’s a hint: select an instance and click QUOTE and you will see how it’s done.

That Richard Lewontin quote was from a review of Carl Sagan’s last book, Demon Haunted World. It’s not a polemical argument but an example of a way of thinking.

T Clark

Took me years to work that out! Here’s a hint: select an instance and click QUOTE and you will see how it’s done. — Wayfarer

Here's what I got:

[ quote="Richard Lewontin;https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/)"]Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[/quote]

Note - I put a space between [ and q at the beginning so our webpage wouldn't interpret the quote symbols.

Do I have to put in the person and link by hand?

Wayfarer

My questions above are not intended to mock the trolls, but to open a two-way dialog on, what I take to be the purpose of Philosophy : to study Human Culture in all its manifestations. — Gnomon

I’m generally sympathetic to your motives, although I have to say, critical of your methods. I’m on the same side of the ledger as yourself - critical of ‘scientism’ which I see as one of the predominant (and pernicious) influences in today’s culture, hence on this forum also, but I try to articulate my criticism in a (shall we say) rather less idiosyncratic style.

And also, there are those against whom it is not worth having the argument. In my view, that kind of hardcore commitment to ‘scientific truth’ often mirrors the kind of fundamentalism that it purports to criticise. (Hence my remark about ‘the jealous God dies hard’.)

Richard Dawkins is a stellar example - he goes around picking arguments with boneheaded flat earthers which he takes as ‘evidence’ for his anti-religious jihad. Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame), said ‘what Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind." My first forum experience was the Dawkins forum, it was hysterically anti-religious. Lot of water under the bridge since then, and Dawkins doesn’t have many sympathisers here (although I’m always dismayed by the way people leap to the defence of his sidekick Dennett whom I believe sullies the good name of philosophy.]

My advice would be, don’t invest too much energy in it. Understand the issues, do the analysis, but don’t worry about trying to win over the opposite side - know when to fold ‘em, as the song says.

↪T Clark

Yes - note the semi-colon. It’s (quote=Sourcename; url including https). That will put (sourcename) under your quote hyperlinked to the source.

Wayfarer

Oh, and sometimes, if the URL is very long, the whole string after the = sign needs to be enclosed in a pair of double quotes (“).

T Clark

Yes - note the semi-colon. It’s (quote=Sourcename; url including https). That will put (sourcename) under your quote hyperlinked to the source. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I'll try it next time I quote something from an outside source.

Tobias

Thus, all the question-begging woo-of-the-gaps sophistry called to account (not "trolled") — 180 Proof

Sure. I think the two positions, the metaphysician who fills the gaps and the one that cleans the debris out again, belong together since Plato's dialogues. I consider metaphysics to be part of the human condition. Immediately when we claim that there is something unknowable or illusory, as Parmenides did, we desire to know it. I consider the mind to be dialogical.

Gnomon

2. We, Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, don't want to defeat something that's dead. We want to stop the proliferation of other people believing that something dead is something alive.
You asked a question and I answered your question. That's all. Run with it. — god must be atheist

Yes. That's why I refer to that anti-heretical attitude as Scientism. It's an absolute Either/Or, Win/Lose, Self/Other, My-way-or-the-highway worldview. It violates Aristotle's definition of Virtue in terms of Moderation. "The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes”. Authoritarian Trolls have been trying to stop the proliferation of diverse views for millennia*1. For example Fascism & Communism are opposing views on how best to govern a populace of "stupid" people. Likewise, orthodox Scientism (love of dogma) is an opposing force to heterodox Philosophy (love of wisdom), competing for the minds of smart people.

Fortunately, many of the smartest scientists are brave enough to forgo the impenetrable shield of Scientism. They may not accept specific metaphysical beliefs, but they are broad-minded enough to accept that the scientific method does not apply to non-physical reality. In exchanges with Scientism defenders, I sometimes refer to Einstein as a Philosopher*2, and they interpret that as an aspersion on his scientific credentials. Which suggests to me that Scientism deprecates the philosophical methods worked-out by the ancient Greeks, in part as an alternative to religious dogma.

My intent in this thread is not to convert adherents of bi-valent (true/false) Scientism to multi-valent Philosophy, but merely to keep the doors of dialog open, so we don't resolve our differences with the Nuclear Option, or burning-at-the-stake, to totally annihilate the heresies of Metaphysics. :cool:

*1. "stop the proliferation" : The Catholic Society for Propagation of Faith, was established to "stop the proliferation" of unorthodox Protestant beliefs.

Aristotle considered moderation a moral virtue and Plato, in “The Republic”, described moderation as the harmony between reason, spirit, and desire.
https://www.headspace.com/articles/moderation-considered-virtue

The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/

Einstein's own philosophy of science is an original synthesis of elements drawn from sources as diverse as neo-Kantianism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism, its distinctive feature being its novel blending of realism with a holist, underdeterminationist form of conventionalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

Philosophers do not aim to discover the laws of nature. That’s a job for scientists. . . . .The philosopher’s aim is not to help scientists do their job. Instead, the philosopher’s aim is to better understand the job that scientists are doing.[/b]
https://aeon.co/essays/natural-laws-cant-be-broken-but-can-they-be-defined?utm_source=pocket-newtab

In logic, the semantic principle (or law) of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false. A logic satisfying this principle is called a two-valued logic or bivalent logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence

*2. When Einstein imagined himself riding on a light beam, he was doing a philosophical thought experiment, instead of a scientific empirical dissection. Philosophers analyze ideas, while Scientists dissect objects.

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space

Gnomon

In my view metaphysics does just that, it interrogates what you consider the basic structures of reality. They become hard to articulate and therefore cause irritation when you force someone to. — Tobias

Nobody said Metaphysics is easy. What Anti-Metaphysicians object to is not rational Philosophy, but irrational Faith. Unfortunately, they don't see the distinction. All the more reason to keep chipping away at the "irritation". Besides, the Trolls are not forced to engage in Metaphysical dialogs. They are like Quixotic Crusaders looking for windmill dragons to slay. :joke:

Deletedmemberzc

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space — Gnomon

Just filing this away.

Meta-Physical versus Anti-Metaphysical

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions